Leaderboard

One of our own forum members!👏🏻

Talked to the last land owner we worked for in Nespelem. He is of the Moses clan. I had rodeo’d in Nespelem in 89, and was asking about a kid that beat me chute dogging. He was first and I was second. The conversation somehow got to him asking me if I believed in Bigfoot. I told him the snow track story at our ranch. He told me that they were afraid after dark. And that one time they had found a Colt that had been ripped in half. Something had grabbed the hind legs and had just wishbone it in half. He always got ansy hunting and shot something and while tracking it, it got dark. The Bigfoot cutout on top of Disautel pass survived the fire. Amazing to me how people there have Bigfoot at the fore front of their minds much more so than a cross section of the white population. Other than the tracks I observed? I was raised with both Colville and Spokane Indians and I am sure they have rubbed off on me.

That hits the nail on the head. (And, thank-you for summarizing the affects that your encounters have had for you. Much appreciated.) Something funny is going on! Of that, I am 99.9% sure. There is just no way that an otherwise 'normal' biological creature of the reported sizes can exist and, remain unclassified after all these years, without something(s) 'funny' going on. This is a good thread, in my opinion. We can be civil here and honestly explore what may be the cause(s) for the lack of Scientific acceptance/classification. When I joined the BFF, it was stated that the official stance of the BBF was basically that Bigfoot are a biological animal, similar to Gorillas, Humans, etc. except in perhaps their size and elusiveness. And, as time went by, I never really understood why so many people categorically reject the idea that there may be (and most likely are) characteristics of Bigfoot that are beyond the current Scientific paradigms. In fact, if you accept that many witnesses are seeing something(s) matching the criteria, it seems undeniable that they must defy our current understandings. As a side note: I live in the middle of a big city, on a busy road. Yet, my backyard is interesting because it becomes almost rural when you step out the back door. And (not to imply too much into how this may affect this current discussion), I have seen unusual wildlife out there. One night about 15 years ago when it was just about to get fully dark, I saw the silhouette of some kind of gigantic bird fly by. We have barred owls and some hawks and a few eagles, but this thing had like a 6-7 foot wing-span and it flew right by me! I imagine that any Ornithologist would probably say 'No, you must be mistaken, there are no birds of that size anywhere around there' but, I know what I saw. Point being: no one really knows anything, until they know.

We can't honestly, with any integrity, call it proof until mainstream science accepts existence of bigfoot. That is what PROOF means. There is no real proof but scientific proof, any lesser proof is not proof, "proof" is the wrong word for that whether it is used from ignorance, illiteracy, or just stubborn malice. There is no way around this. You seem to not understand what "proof" means. You're trying to change the definition / refusing to use the existing definition. Best of luck convincing anyone but yourself with that.

I don't think that's automatically a strange question. It is something we should be thinking about .. society-wise, not just bigfooters. I think the best answer is "it depends." There are some really bad assumptions built into the question, assumptions that should be examined. First thing .. what we consider "normal" is not historical normal. (1) Transpiration creates a downwind moisture plume which allows forest to grow in places it naturally could not. Fire destroys not just what it burns, but the downwind moisture plume which "artificially" supports forest in places that would naturally be desert if there were no forest upwind to provide the atmospheric moisture. (2) We have 100 years and more of fire fighting / fire prevention which has altered the natural landscape. Though it is familiar to us, it is not the long term norm and it is not "natural." Complicating things further, the Native Americans / First Nations people deliberately altered the environment / landscape with large scale fire. Because they seem to have arrived before deglaciation, there probably has not been a "natural" environment, one not altered by human activity, since before the last glacial maximum. Data suggest we are in a period of rapid climate change. Second thing .. forest regrowth is though a progression of stages. Once forest is lost, we get grasslands / brush, smaller trees, etc before big trees return. This can take centuries, not decades, not years, and given changing climate conditions, I'm not sure we will have periods between fires long enough for the cycle to complete, we seem to be looking at forest -> burn -> brush -> burn -> brush -> burn -> brush .. etc. We .. in my area .. are getting much more frequent dry lighting and large fires than we have ever had in recorded history. The opportunities for mature forest to re-form under these conditions seem nil. In fact it seems the only chance of restoration is via human intervention, not via natural processes. This situation seems likely to last for centuries, maybe tens of centuries, and the new equilibrium, if there is one, won't be the one we're used to. I suspect much of North America, if humans just vanished, would turn into a land of brush and grasses with very little "reclamation" by forest as we know it because of the increased rate of lightning fires driven by global warming. Once turned to brush and grasses, it is very difficult to return to forest because conditions don't last enough years in a row for that to happen. IMHO of course! MIB

I think any hominid that is still eeking out an existence while sharing the planet with Homo Sapien cousins are gonna be dang good at avoidance. And part of that avoidance survival strategy will be being super sneaky. But it also ensures that they will be low in numbers. Too high of a population leads them into direct conflict with us. And when I mean “us”…. I mean Pleistocene Humans. A couple of hundred men armed with spears or bows and fire. Only humans organize in such high numbers for combat. I think long ago they learned to stay hidden. 21 species in the genus Homo. Officially we are all that’s left. I don’t think that’s by chance.

.........AND there are millions more people out there to see them, AND actually looking for them. The human population of this planet has quadrupled in just the last century: 10,000 BCE: About 4 million people lived on Earth after the shift toward agriculture. 1 CE: Around 170 million to 300 million people. 1804: Reached 1 billion for the first time, taking all of human history. 1927: Reached 2 billion (123 years later). 1960: Reached 3 billion (33 years later). 1974: Reached 4 billion (14 years later). 1987: Reached 5 billion (13 years later). 1999: Reached 6 billion (12 years later). 2011: Reached 7 billion (12 years later). 2022: Reached 8 billion on November 15, 2022 (11 years later)

I think the answer almost has to be a hybrid version of what MIB asked above: "Are there a) lots of bigfoots but they are super sneaky or b) only a few bigfoots but they are fairly clumsy, inept at hiding, so those few are seen fairly frequently?" I propose a possibility c) There are only a few hundred (or, maybe a few thousand) Bigfoot left AND they are super sneaky. How that plays into the sad possibility that they may be on the verge of extinction I don't know. But, I think it's either that, or we are dealing with critters far beyond our current Scientific paradigms. I'm currently about 50-50 between those two options. The only thing I'm 99.9% sure of is that Bigfoot exist and that they have, and probably still do, walk on planet Earth.

I want to throw out a random thought, a question I ponder now and then. Are there a) lots of bigfoots but they are super sneaky or b) only a few bigfoots but they are fairly clumsy, inept at hiding, so those few are seen fairly frequently? I mean, pretty simple logic .. either option produces a similar number of reports. Since many reports occur in clusters / flurries, then there's nothing in that area again for years, maybe bigfoot is not so uncatchable after all, they're just even more rare than we give them credit for? If they are traveling pretty fast that might account for the "report chasers" always being late, never finding a bigfoot when they arrive. Dunno, just one of those mental tin cans I kick around when I have nothing useful to think about.

The following account of the event came mainly from two visits I had with Peter: first in early May of 2003 when I stayed with him for three days, and in September of that year when he put me up again for two days. We also talked about the shooting incident several times by phone, before and since my visits. The word-for-word questions and Peter’s answers presented here were mostly from the May visit; we sat together in his home where he lives alone now. I taped our conversation. The reader will note a leading tendency in my questions. The prior discussions, I bel ............................read on BFRO Report 9552- Moose hunter shoots -bigfoot- to death.url This BFRO account describes a young 17 year old Canadian moose hunter who shot and killed a bigfoot. This report is plausible enough to be published in the BFRO reports so there is a chance it could be true. Is this a myth or monster event that came about in a small Canadian village? Why is Bigfoot so hard to track, stalk, and capture? Some on the forum now throw the creature into the myth category. If bigfoot is a thousand times more intelligent and wary than a jungle monkey, it becomes a thousand times as difficult to stalk and capture live or deceased. Some animals are just too smart or wary and have incredible hearing and sense of smell. Some seem to fit into the myth category much like Michael Jordan , Joe Namath or a Roswell alien to name a few super individuals. Every now and then bigfoot will slip up and will be captured like Patty was captured on film. The lucky Canadian hunter will repeat itself and a body will be produced to cause bigfoot to be identified as a monster. BFRO Report 9552- Moose hunter shoots -bigfoot- to death.url

Lake Shelbyville Illinois:

Could be. I’d say the older I get the longer I go without seeing a debunking of the PGF. Could be a hoax. But the longer I go without seeing a strong hoax case being made the more it suggests Roger and Bob may have really “got the sucker” One can be real but the Government involvement is not required.

That is an insightful question. I saw what I saw, I know what I know. Though convincing to me, because I was there observing, not merely hearing the account afterwards, I would be disappointed if anyone looked at my sighting accounts as anything other than "just another anecdote" so far as "proof" goes. I don't even have a picture to back them up with. That makes them, frankly, pretty weak sauce so far as proving anything at all. I hope that for someone already convinced by some other body of evidence, they are interesting and maybe educational, maybe fill in some gaps. At least for a couple of the tracks I do have pictures. They are open to interpretation. For interested individuals, they might well be interesting / educational, but I have no delusions that those constitute proof either. They'd barely make the grade as serious evidence. Same for the audio. All are most useful as interesting data points for those who are interested. They should never be thought of as proof or even as strong evidence. Does this make sense? I hope so, hope it gives some context for how I see my own meager "offerings."

After some research, here is what I found out about Jacko, the juvenile bigfoot found in Canada. Nov 18 The story of Jacko The story of Jacko – that of a small, apelike, young Sasquatch said to have been captured alive in the 1800s – is a piece of folklore that refuses to die, despite a superb investigative article published in 1975, co-authored by John Green and Sabina W. Sanderson. The investigation into the Jacko story did not began until decades later. During the 1950s, a news reporter named Brian McKelvie became interested in the then-current stories of the Sasquatch being carried by his local British Columbian papers. McKelvie searched for older reports. What he found was the Daily British Colonist July 4, 1884, article about Jacko. The account detailed the sighting of a smallish hairy creature (“something of the gorilla type”) supposedly seen and captured near Yale, British Columbia, on June 30, 1884, and housed in a local jail. McKelvie shared the Jacko account with researchers John Green and René Dahinden. MeKelvie told them this was the only record of the event due to a fire that had destroyed other area newspapers of the time. In 1958 John Green found and interviewed a man (August Castle) who remembered the Jacko talk of the time, but he said his parents did not take him to the jail to see the beast. Other senior citizens remembered the talk of the creature, but no one could produce any truly good evidence for or eyewitness accounts (other than the British Colonist story) of Jacko. The story’s appearance in Ivan T. Sanderson’s 1961 Abominable Snowmen: Legend Come to Life propelled the Jacko incident into history. Other authors, including John Green, René Dahinden/Don Hunter, Grover Krantz, and John Napier, would follow. The story was repeated again and again.

You make some very good points in regard to Jacko and if correct the story was repeated in some newspaper. I will do some research to find out what newspaper. If it was written about, there is a chance that the author created a fantastical story about a supposed ape. There is also a 50% chance that the story is true and some unidentified primate was found on the railroad tracks and captured. I will do some research to find more information on Jacko. Let's not throw the report in the trash can yet. Let's allow a chance that the story is true. By the way your post is very informative, well written, and an interesting read.

I do not think you have any grasp of "proof" based on what you write over and over. If you do, you hide it very well. You're repeatedly saying false things and expecting them to be taken as fact. Scientific illiteracy, repeated endlessly, does not become fact. If you find that abrasive, maybe you need to be .. abraded .. a bit. How is it done? "Giant ballroom" .. is actually closer than you imagine. A virtual giant ballroom anyway. It is done the same way real science is always done. Gather evidence, analyze, write it up, and publish in an established journal. The journal is, in virtual terms, that ballroom. If your evidence is solid, if it is repeatable by other scientists, and if your analysis is correct, your claim will be substantiated. It will be scrutinized, probably painfully, in detail, questions will be asked probably via responses in other papers / journals, and you'll have to be able to address them. This is not for intellectual babies with easily hurt feelings, the processes are brutal .. ask Ketchum, ask J. Harlan Bretz, etc. Ketchum was refuted and ridiculed because her science was garbage. Bretz' work was rejected for decades but finally accepted and now is the mainstream understanding. If your work is good, it stands, if it is crap, it falls, and that is how it should be. There is no shortcut. If you're not going through the established processes you're not going to be accepted by the establishment. Until that happens, you do not have proof regardless of what you wish to believe.

XSPIDER ONE, a very comprehensive reply and totally agree with you. Thanks for addding to this topic and will reply to each of your discussion points. I WILL REPLY IN ALL CAPITALS. That is actually a very good question/point. Although I am not a witness to Bigfoot, I contend that there are many witnesses who have their own undeniable proof. It is a fantastical subject to convince anyone else of, but I would venture to say that there are Bigfoot witnesses who are more convinced by their own experience than they would otherwise be by any Scientific, peer-reviewed paper. They know what they saw and what they experienced! Most of us have probably read that a (personally) indisputable Bigfoot experience can be life changing. VERY WELL PUT AND WE NEED MORE SCIENTIST WHO HAVE ADVANCED DEGREES IN PRIMATE STUDIES WHO ARE ALSO EYEWITNESSES SO THE SUBJECT OF PROOF CAN BE MOVED FORWARD. However, and to the point, Google AI sums up the situation clearly, in my opinion: "Bigfoot could be scientifically proven only by providing a verifiable type specimen, such as an intact physical body or clear tissue sample, that undergoes independent, peer-reviewed analysis." I READ AN EYE WITNESS REPORT FROM A CANADIAN WHO LIVED IN A SMALL VILLAGE, AND WAS DEER OR ELK HUNTINS, SAW A BIGFOOT, AND ENDED ITS LIFE TRAGICALLY. HOW MANY CASES LIKE THIS THAT HAVE FAILED TO PROVIDE PROOF ? Unfortunately, testimony, video, footprints, structures, audio, etc. etc. will not suffice. In the warmer (hot) months, I see a bug almost every week that I have never seen before. My dad told me that it's the same where he lives, 900 miles away. It very well could be that some of those bugs are not yet scientifically classified and, I don't think that most people would deny that as a possibility. With Bigfoot, things are entirely different. It is a radical subject which probably 99.999% of people in the world have no personal experience. So, the easiest default opinion is to simply deny the possibility. THERE ARE PROBABLY MANY PRIMATE ADVANCED DEGREES BIOLOGIST WHO AGREE WITH BIGFOOT EVIDENCE BUT WILL NEVER COMMENT SINCE THE TOPIC IS A CAREER DETRACTOR. ONLY THE RISK TAKERS DARE SPEAK IN FAVOR OF BIGFOOTS EXISTENCE.

Hello there, I’m a long time believer since my uncle told me stories of the forest people and extra terrestrial life when I was growing up. Recently, I moved from San Francisco to Salem, Oregon and now have locations close enough to visit. Oh, my name is Brianne and I have an awesome K9-American that I bring on all my adventures with me. Can’t wait to chat!

Daniel's recollection of dates and events regarding Bigfoot is amazing. I was getting his newsletter for awhile and enjoyed it. He's one of those researchers who has a great ability to speak truth, direct and to the point. Nice interview, thanks for posting, Norse.

I try to avoid big groups, but I'd love to find someone to partner up with for some remote, dispersed camping in east TX soon. Going into my fifth year of research. I have a Jeep, a thermal monocular, audio recorder and some good camping gear.

Well definitely the discussions are a big part of it, as its always great to bounce ideas and get opinions and critiques, asking questions, even if sasquatch don't look like a shaved bear. I like the paranormal section, and I've yet to access the tarpit, but heck I couldn't even say how many years I've been coming here posting my own crazy ideas, hypothesesiz, answers/solutions, approach, long winded replies that might seem nearly rational at the outset, but then kinda veer off to something about generalist omnivores in the Pleistocene, and how wood tools work just fine when you can bench press a tractor, and sometimes even try my hand at Bigfoot humor, sometimes to make or illustrate a point, other times not so much. But gosh, you guys, after all these years we're nearly family! Sure some of has might be that grumpy uncle we seat at the other table, but still! Hey anybody here from Aunt Sasfooty lately?

Excellent interview, Daniel!

In the folklore of the Caucasus, Pamir, and Altai mountains, an almas (also called an almasty) is a legendary hominid cryptid. Stories describe it as a human-like creature covered in reddish-brown hair, standing 5 to 6.5 feet tall, and resembling modern reconstructions of Neanderthals rather than large apes. Zana fit that physical description perfectly. She was called an Almas during and after her lifetime. Recently, Science dug her body up along with that of her son and analyzed the DNA of other descendants. She has been scientifically identified as Homo sapiens. She was both, and there is no reason why she could not be both.

Thanks for the info about the eclipse tonight!

Hi everyone. I reside in Ontario, Canada. Been interested in Bigfoot and cryptozoology and have been reading up on them on and off for over 20 years.

Hello! I'm a new person. I'm an avid lover and a believer in Bigfoot.

Hey how are yall from Louisiana

Agreed this is a great interview. Very timely considering the upcoming supposed release of the Capturing Bigfoot piece. Mr Perez’ book, Bigfoot at Bluff Creek, is excellent. I consider it a must read for those of us who want a complete breakdown of the Patterson Gimlin Film and all its history. Mr Perez was able to tie all the loosely connected dangling threads (people, places, things) into a cohesive explanation of the timeline of events and evidence surrounding the film.

Excellent interview with Daniel. I'll be sending off payment for his newsletter forthwith. The comments are gold, the folks buying the caca that the PGF has been "debunked," and disproven are (to me) hilarious.

I think the best circumstantial evidence was obtained by the Olympic Project.

Fauna bone pile as a result of Glacial Lake Outburst Flood washing animals downstream until the wall of water dissipates and the dead animals 'pile up'. Muck piles have yielded bones of ancient animals to miners for many years. Many bones were washed out to sea in the Arctic and Bering Sea. Glacial Lake Outburst Floods were massive and repetitive.

Interesting. So far as the cases I've been able to dig into personally, the further I dig the more off-the-mark he is. I would like to believe what he has to say but it simply does not hold up to scrutiny. Most of the reports I've dug into have been in the Crater Lake cluster along with a couple in Idaho. I'll try to give him the benefit of the doubt in other places.

Can't agree with your abrasive comments but good scientific reasoning will do as a new challenge for you. I have a good gasp of proof. Can you tell us how 1000 advanced degreed primate biologist finally agree that bigfoot should be classified as a new species? Be to the point and don't be lowly and use sarcasm. How is this done? Do all of them meet in a giant ballroom and vote?